Comments

“The right to hold deeply held religious beliefs ends the moment you express them in public. I have a right to evaluate your reasons for holding them, especially when the entire concept is highly dubious yet defended with absolute certainty and implied moral superiority. I’m not buying it. Keep faith out of public affairs and religious belief inside your own head where it belongs. " Barber mainly you making up yourself judge over others that do not share your own views , you are the god of your little world holding your moral superiority therefore you do not have any saying in that matter if you stick to your own judgment and saying .

Mr. Terry Rudden, I still am going to address your worthy question about my in depth opinion on the case. I just keep getting interrupted and can’t devote the proper time to it that I think it deserves. I will though. Youve thrown down a a gauntlet and I will take it seriously. Sunday tomorrow. Should be easier time wise. – Cheers.

There is no need for any “god” reference or respect for traditional religious nonsense in the governance of our country. We are in action a secular country. Be thankful for that. If someone needs an eternal overseer to make moral or ethical decisions and judgments then I suggest they have little internal character of their own. This country does not belong to any religious sect or cult, regardless of what the constitution says. The right to hold deeply held religious beliefs ends the moment you express them in public. I have a right to evaluate your reasons for holding them, especially when the entire concept is highly dubious yet defended with absolute certainty and implied moral superiority. I’m not buying it. Keep faith out of public affairs and religious belief inside your own head where it belongs.

The supreme court of Canada became the new molder of social values . Tyrannical powers where no one have a say , they are themselves the law. They protect the rights of minorities not of the Canadians cause the way they rules they make a distinction and divide Canada in groups . U N rule the same way . They are their own gods and privilege whom they want.
I am thankful to God for Canada but sad to see that so call indoctrinated peoples positions themselves with Carl Marx or Staline. They are the product of our indoctrination system .

What about the Muslim prayer rooms in schools? Are schools now not a public space? When are our leaders going to grow a pair and even the playing field? Not until the silent majority start to speak up. I have nothing against any persons beliefs. They should just be applied evenly.

Bill, please note that my reference to “filthy ideologies” was enclosed in quotation marks, which indicates their excision from another source – in this case, an earlier and quite manic commenter. Your comment on range of divinities encompassed under the term “God” is appreciated, but does not address my point.

Terry you sound confused about the situation and the constitution here. I have no idea what your hang up is with filth and “filthy ideologies”, that’s between you and your God/conscience.
As far as public matters are concerned the SCOC erred in their decision to expunge observance of Deity in public meetings. Starting a public meeting or school day with a prayer is not only a Christian tradition it is an observance by all faiths that “God” direct their actions to be wise and just, nowhere in the Constitutional documents does it specify that this applies only to the Christian God, in legal terms the Charter and Constitution engage the word “God” as an inclusive term. – my how filthy is that? If you care to read the charter preamble it states that our rule of law ( directed by the charter and BNA act) are done under the authority of and belief in “God” ( whether that be Allah or Jehovah, or Buddah, Krishna or some cosmic muffin) it is a deference of the state to the natural order overseen by deity. CONSTITUTIONACT, 1982 PART ICANADIANCHARTER OF RIGHTSANDFREEDOMS
“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

It seem pretty clear that the rule of law is founded upon the concept of Deity as supreme authority from which government must defer to drive legitimacy.

AND- -
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
That seems pretty clear as well that we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religious expression. So you don’t need to be a Rhodes scholar to understand this plain English , just a Black’s law dictionary and a little common logic. Seems to me the SCOC had no right to ban any prey by anyone in public life – just ensure that all religious expression is accommodated – to that end, they erred.

Religion has to be kept out of govt. Already Calgarys mayor thinks prayers might be good. I dont think its right to having muslims, christians, jews or whoever letting their religious beliefs dictating their governmental decisions. No Room For Religion in Politics. Say NO to sharia law in Canada!!!!!

When I see the Supreme Court having the guts and the courage to limit Muslim penetration of our culture, such as the Mosqueteria in a Scarborough high school every Friday, then I will take the so-called separation of religion from state seriously. As it stands now it is only our Christian traditions which are being oppressed while the insurrection of the more aggressive Muslim religion is left unchecked. Hypocrisy. Dangerous hypocrisy.

Mr. Rudden I understand that you want a factual analysis of the SCOC decision. Fair enough. But you are not acknowledging a fact that I think is concerning many here. When taken in the context of a recent history of SCOC decisions which are always predictable people can see a deliberate activist movement by the top court. The top court is anti christian, anti conservative and determined that the elected body of the government be subservient to the the courts.

No amount of lawyer sophistry or blaming Harper irony is going to change that. The courts have been deliberately hostile to conservatives and traditionalists.

The question remains now what can voters DO ABOUT IT?

Here are some suggestions: -Term limits for judges,
-Realistic, aggressive and very public vetting hearings,
-elected judges a lower and mid levels,
-referendums that force politicians to use the nothwithstanding clause to reverse court decisions that run contrary to the public will (Judges love to whine -with big wide innocent eyes that they are only INTERPRETING the law and if we don’t like the interpretation then change the law) that’s what the referendum is all about. – deal with it.
-Hearings for judges to stand up in front of public committees and face questions about their decisions
-Public disclosure of SCOC desions. FULL public dislclosure. No hiding who voted how. Every member of the SCOC must declare publically HOW they voted and why.
-Full disclosure of judicial wages, retirement plans, benefits, and perks associated with the position.

Terry, the more the SCoC rules against the traditions that have been practiced in Canada since confederation the less Canada remain as Canada. Traditions and history is what creates a nation’s identity. The SCoC is slowly chipping away at those traditions. That is one reason why people disagree with the ruling.

I, however, think the church and state should be completely separated and the only thing the state should do is to ensure the freedom of people to worship as they please.

What’s missing from this discussion so far is any actual analysis of why respondents feel Supreme Court’s decision was legally incorrect – unless, of course, you share Mr. McKay’s view that " Supreme Court Justices, are lovers of INTRINSIC EVIL" and that “these filthy minded persons who are apointed [sic], not Elected, are twisting the Constitution, and Charter of Rights, and Freedoms, to suite they’re [sic] filthy ideologies”. Given that the majority of Supreme Court justices now serving were appointed by Prime Minister Harper, one must wonder what “filthy ideology” it is they’re accused of espousing.

Well Joan I can recall being given a hard time on the matter of swearing an oath on the Bible as witness in criminal court, declaring residency at a provincial election, and property transfer relating to divorce. I am aware that the book says you have that option, but many officers of the court do not seem to be aware of it and are deeply resentful when you point it out. They also tend to think that when you tell them you are Buddhist that you are being a smart ass.

Brian – In short -classic liberal democratic constitutional rule of law is dead – we are now in the throws of the new amoral, pervasive authoritarianism of statist socialism. It is not just Canada but every nation on the UN signatory list.

Call it the new order of governing or what ever you want but the current wave of leftist politicians have an agenda to assemble the centrally controlled technocratic statist absolutism which the old Fabian socialists only dreamt of. At the center of this new amoral ideology is government -government must be virtually worshipped – government purpose will be expanded into every small crevice of personal choice and conduct – government will plan your life and guide your every action. The new governing model is a direct attack on the individual, his freedom, his ideals/philosophy/theology his rights and his property.

The historic constitutional constraints on government must, of necessity be ignored and undermined for this new governing order to progress – we see this in the deterioration in the police function, legislating and judicial over sight – all no longer respect the rights of the individual. First and foremost as a barrier against this move to pervasive interventionist amoral governing is the Christian/Jewish/Muslim faiths who will never allow governing entities to hold a place in their life above God -so, of necessity people of faith must be extricated from public life and society to usher in the new governing order. We see the attacks daily – it will not stop with Christians, ultimately the so called Progressives at the forefront of the new governing order will extricate ALL faiths – there can be no God higher than government and its power structures.

Figures don’t lie, liars figure; ESPECIALLY when it comes to the tail wagging the dog. I believe the Lesbians (ladies first, AGAIN??) Gays, Bisexual, Transgendered and Queers constitute only 10% of the population but are the most vocal about getting “their” rights to the exclusion of our rights! Well when our permissive society is losing their heads to ISIS who you gonna call after you’ve demonized MEN?

Okay~so “religion” expressed by moslems in govt buildings is okay,(wear niqab) however it is not okay for Christians! If “religious” expression is NOT allowed , then that means all crosses, niqab, burka, head scarves, hat rag things, knives,etc.. will be banned in govt concerns and buildings ! No employee with any religious display~~GOOD! Christians keep G-D in their heart anyway and were told to go to prayer closet, without others knowing their faith ways~~(Like no prayer rug in public building~Koran says to pray 2X/day~morn& night~~5X is JIHAD/CHAOSSUPREMICISTACTIONS!)

We should get some things straight. The Charter is NOT our constitution. Our constitution is the BNA Act. The Charter is used to help interpret the Act. If these regressive judges at the SOC think that our constitution says anything about religion in city council meetings then they know nothing about common law.
The BNA requires 100% of the provinces to agree to make changes to it. We never got that for the Charter so it is just another Federal Law. The charter states that we are all equal but some are more equal than others – they have special status. So we have at the top the First Nations, then French Canadians, then the gay-BLT group and then the rest of us at the bottom of the caste system. That’s the real Charter. It shifted power from the elected government to the unelected judges. Would your province vote for these change to the BNA Act?
Dump the Charter and bring back the Bill of Rights which reflected common law.

Now it’s plain to see why there were hissy-fits galore from the left when it was feared that a monument to the victims of communism would, literally, overshadow the Supreme Court building.
The pieces are falling into place.
The Supreme Court is becoming the last bastion of communism.
Canada has become the victim.

Brian pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling even acknowledged that “Neither the Quebec Charter nor the Canadian Charter imposes a duty of religious neutrality on the state”. So from whence did it come? The ruling answered by stating, “This duty results from an evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion”, that is, nothing less than from the minds of the nine unelected Supreme Court judges. Therefore, clearly, the judges with the Quebec Court of Appeal were not as “evolved” in their “interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion" as the imperious Supreme Court judges. The judges, by the way, are very handsomely paid (chief justice: $396,700 and other 8 judges: $367,300) as befits such imperious philosopher kings.
I have written before about Chief Justice McLachlin and her imperious attitude of her function as a judge. The judicial tyranny at play in Canada is not hidden. Chief Justice McLachlin has such an understanding as declared so in her own words, “There is little point decrying the fact judges make law they do and they must.” This makes sense when one understands her legal philosophy that was spelled out in a lecture she gave in 2005 to law students at Victoria University, Wellington, NZ. According to McLachlin, judges should feel “emboldened” to trump the written word of the Constitution when protecting fundamental, unwritten principles and rights as explained here:http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=273c95d2-0674-45c8-b5c5-86fac02d0c84&amp;k=2105
In her view, “unwritten constitutional principles” have a role in judicial decisions because societal values change over time, and the constitution document can be incomplete or open to interpretation. A commenter on this article noted, “Here we have a clear blueprint for justifying judicial activism at the highest level and in its most egregious forms. This is why we need full parliamentary vetting of SCC judges where their record of judgments and philosophy can be critically examined by all. There is no excuse for not knowing this philosophy of judicial activism before she was appointed to the SCC. This undermines the power of parliament and, thereby, undermines democracy”. Indeed!